Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Frequently Asked Questions
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, Sept 9, will hear a much anticipated case that has the potential to open the floodgates of corporate money into our political system. The court, in a special session, will consider whether to overturn well-established judicial precedents upholding restrictions on unlimited corporate and union spending expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates.
What is Citizens United?
During the 2008 election, a conservative non-profit organization named "Citizens United" produced Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Because of the political nature of the movie and the fact that Citizens United intended to purchase airtime on a video on-demand service on cable television, the movie was deemed an "electioneering communication" by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and was therefore subject to the rules governing the production of political ads, including limitations on who may fund them. Citizens United sued in federal court to overturn the decision, lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court accepted the case, heard the arguments and was set to make a ruling on whether the FEC was correct to classify the movie as an "electioneering communication," when it did something unexpected. Rather than ruling on the case, the court asked for a rehearing, but on a much broader question than the nature of this one political movie. The court now wants to consider overturning the restrictions on all corporate and union contributions to political campaigns. If the Court rules that limits on contribution from corporations and unions are unconstitutional, it could effectively reverse a series of Supreme Court decisions and Congressional action going back more than a century.
Why does this matter?
Corporations already wield tremendous influence in our political system by virtue of the billions of dollars they spend on campaign contributions and lobbying every year, even in a system with limits on political giving. So far in 2009, just the companies that work in the health care industry have spent more than $263 million on lobbyists. If the Supreme Court rules that any limitation on corporate contributions – which have been in place since 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act – are unconstitutional, corporations and unions will completely crowd out the general public and will become the principal source of money for any candidate who hopes to win a seat in Congress.
It is difficult to imagine a world in which corporations enjoy more influence in Washington than they do now. Corporations would have so much money to donate to candidates that they could use it to drown out the voices of individual citizens. As difficult as change is now, reforms dealing with climate change or skyrocketing health care costs would only be possible in such a world if they somehow benefitted the huge corporations that were bankrolling elections. More likely, companies would oppose these and other populist measures, like they do now, in favor of legislation addressing their specific corporate interests, only to greater effect.
How does this affect Common Cause's efforts to pass public financing reforms on the state and national levels?
Immediately, the ruling will not have any effect on the constitutionality of public financing programs that are currently in place. Whatever the court decides, this case highlights why we need to change the way we pay for political campaigns now more than ever. Congress is now considering the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 & HR 1826), legislation that would create a voluntary system of small donations and limited public funding for congressional candidates. Even if the Supreme Court rules that limitations on corporate and union contributions are unconstitutional, the Fair Elections Now Act would allow candidates to seek government financing for their election campaigns and free them from having to satisfy corporations or unions in order to raise enough money to run for public office.
The new citizen funded election models for Congress and state legislatures would put all contributions on an equal playing field—corporate, union, PAC and YOUR donations. Candidates who opt into this system can only accept contributions of $100 or less. In the current money driven political system, member of Congress already spend countless hours each day raising money from the same lobbyists and special interests they're supposed to oversee in Washington. Despite an unfavorable court ruling, the Fair Elections system would reduce members of Congress reliance on large campaign contributions.
What can I do?
Please contact your member of Congress and ask them to keep big money out of politics by co-sponsoring the Fair Elections Now Act. We need your voice to end the pay-to-play political system in Washington. To find out more information go to www.commoncause.org/FairElectionsNowAct.